# [2012] 1 S.C.R. 1118

- **Citation:** [2012] 1 S.C.R. 1118
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2012-02-27
- **Bench:** S.H. Kapadia, A.K. Patnaik, 8 Swatanter Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/2012-1-s-c-r-1118-27996
- **Pages:** 42

## Headnote

CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:
Art. 32 - Writ petitions seeking directions to Central and
C State Governments for effective management of water by
nationalisation and inter-linking of rivers - Held: Government
of India has framed National Water Policy - Further,
a
National Perspective Plan has been formulated for optimum
utilization of water resources in the country which envisaged
0 inter-basin transfer of water from water-surplus to water-deficit
areas - River linking plan in its ultimate stage of development
will also enable flood moderation -
30 links have been
identified - Huge amounts of public money have been spent
- These projects are to be completed with a sense of sincerity
and a desire for its completion - Keeping in view the relative
E economic and social needs of interested States, volume of
stream and its uses, land not watered, and other relevant
considerations, it will be for the expert bodies atone to
examine on such issues and their impact on the project -
Courts have their limitations to undertake such an exercise
F within the scope of-its power of judicial review and even on
the basis of expanded principles of public interest litigation -
It will not only be desirable, but also inevitable that an
appropriate body should be created to plan, construct and
implement this inter-linking of rivers program for the benefit
G of the nation as a whole - Union of India directed to constitute
a Committee to be called a 'Special Committee for Interlinking of Rivers' with the composition as suggested in the
judgment -
The Committee so constituted shall take such
steps as specified in the judgment and submit reports to the
H
1118
"IN RE: NETWORKING OF RIVERS"
1119
Cabinet of the Government of India - Central and the State
A
Governments concerned directed to comply with the directions
contained in the judgment effectively and expeditiously -
Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 - River Boards Act, 1956
- Public interest litigation - Judicial review - Sepration of
powers.
B
Art. 262, Seventh Schedule, List I, Entries 56, and 97,
List II, Entry 17 and List Ill, Entry 20 - Adjudication of disputes
relating to waters of intercState rivers - Inter-linking of rivers -
Held: By and large, there is unanimity in accepting interlinking
of rivers but the reservations of the States concerned can also
C
not be ignored, being relatable to their particular economic,
geographical and socio-economic needs - These are matters
which squarely fall within the domain of general consensus
and, thus, require a framework to be formulated by the
competent Government or the Legislature, as the case may D
be, prior to its execution - By virtue of Art. 262 read with Entries
56 and 97 of List I Entry 17 of List II and Entry 20 of List Ill,
Parliament gets wide field of legislation relatable to various
subjects, including regulation and development of inter-State
rivers and to create adjudicatory mechanism.
E
In the instant writ petitions filed in public interest,
directions were sought against the Central Government
and the State Governments concerned for effective
management of water resources by nationalization and
interlinking of rivers in the country. Notice was issued
F
to all the States and the Attorney General for India inviting
their stance on the issue of networking of rivers. On
31.10.2002, the Court recorded that there was, in
principle, consensus amongst all the States to go ahead
with the project of interlinking of rivers. A high level Task
G
Force was set up. Feasibility Reports (FRs) were prepared
for the intended links. A total number of 30 links were
identified: 16 under the peninsular river development
component and 14 under the Himalayan river
development component. FRs of 16 links were placed on
H
1120
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012] 1 S.C.R.
A the website. The status report filed on behalf of the
Government of India showed that a committee of
environmentalists, social activists and other experts
would be constituted to be involved in t

## Text

_Characters 0–39,993 of 80,571. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39993 for what follows._

A
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 1118
"IN RE : NETWORKING OF RIVERS"
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 512 of 2002)
FEBRUARY 27, 2012
[S.H. KAPADIA, CJI, A.K. PATNAIK AND
8
SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.)
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:
Art. 32 - Writ petitions seeking directions to Central and
C State Governments for effective management of water by
nationalisation and inter-linking of rivers - Held: Government
of India has framed National Water Policy - Further,
a
National Perspective Plan has been formulated for optimum
utilization of water resources in the country which envisaged
0 inter-basin transfer of water from water-surplus to water-deficit
areas - River linking plan in its ultimate stage of development
will also enable flood moderation -
30 links have been
identified - Huge amounts of public money have been spent
- These projects are to be completed with a sense of sincerity
and a desire for its completion - Keeping in view the relative
E economic and social needs of interested States, volume of
stream and its uses, land not watered, and other relevant
considerations, it will be for the expert bodies atone to
examine on such issues and their impact on the project -
Courts have their limitations to undertake such an exercise
F within the scope of-its power of judicial review and even on
the basis of expanded principles of public interest litigation -
It will not only be desirable, but also inevitable that an
appropriate body should be created to plan, construct and
implement this inter-linking of rivers program for the benefit
G of the nation as a whole - Union of India directed to constitute
a Committee to be called a 'Special Committee for Interlinking of Rivers' with the composition as suggested in the
judgment -
The Committee so constituted shall take such
steps as specified in the judgment and submit reports to the
H
1118
"IN RE: NETWORKING OF RIVERS"
1119
Cabinet of the Government of India - Central and the State
A
Governments concerned directed to comply with the directions
contained in the judgment effectively and expeditiously -
Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 - River Boards Act, 1956
- Public interest litigation - Judicial review - Sepration of
powers.
B
Art. 262, Seventh Schedule, List I, Entries 56, and 97,
List II, Entry 17 and List Ill, Entry 20 - Adjudication of disputes
relating to waters of intercState rivers - Inter-linking of rivers -
Held: By and large, there is unanimity in accepting interlinking
of rivers but the reservations of the States concerned can also
C
not be ignored, being relatable to their particular economic,
geographical and socio-economic needs - These are matters
which squarely fall within the domain of general consensus
and, thus, require a framework to be formulated by the
competent Government or the Legislature, as the case may D
be, prior to its execution - By virtue of Art. 262 read with Entries
56 and 97 of List I Entry 17 of List II and Entry 20 of List Ill,
Parliament gets wide field of legislation relatable to various
subjects, including regulation and development of inter-State
rivers and to create adjudicatory mechanism.
E
In the instant writ petitions filed in public interest,
directions were sought against the Central Government
and the State Governments concerned for effective
management of water resources by nationalization and
interlinking of rivers in the country. Notice was issued
F
to all the States and the Attorney General for India inviting
their stance on the issue of networking of rivers. On
31.10.2002, the Court recorded that there was, in
principle, consensus amongst all the States to go ahead
with the project of interlinking of rivers. A high level Task
G
Force was set up. Feasibility Reports (FRs) were prepared
for the intended links. A total number of 30 links were
identified: 16 under the peninsular river development
component and 14 under the Himalayan river
development component. FRs of 16 links were placed on
H
1120
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012] 1 S.C.R.
A the website. The status report filed on behalf of the
Government of India showed that a committee of
environmentalists, social activists and other experts
would be constituted to be involved in the consultative
process of formulation and execution of the entire
B project. The status reports filed from time to time were
considered by the Court.
Disposing of the writ petitions, connected IAs and
the contempt petitions, the Court
C
HELD: 1.1 The Government of India has always
shown considerable concern regarding the management
of water resources in the country and had framed, for this
purpose, the National .Water Policy, which seeks to make
available water supply to those areas which face
D shortages. This aspect of the matter could be effectively
dealt with, only if the various rivers in the country are
linked and are nationalized. The Ministry of Irrigation,
along with the Central Water Commission, had formulated
in the year 1980 a National Perspective Plan (NPP) for
E optimum utilization of water resources in the country
which envisaged inter-basin transfer of water from watersurplus to water-deficit areas. Apart from diverting water
from rivers which are surplus, to deficit areas, the river
linking plan in its ultimate stage of development will also
F enable flood moderation. [para 8-9] [1130-E-H; 1131-A-B]
1.2 It is significant to notice that till date no minor or
major project has been actually implemented at the
ground level despite the fact that this case has been
pending before this Court for more than ten years. Only
G the DPR of the Ken-Betwa link has been prepared and
its implementation is awaiting the approval of the State
Governments as well as the allocation of funds, even to
begin the work. This does not speak well of the desire
on the part of any of the concerned Governments to
H implement these projects, despite the fact that there is
"IN RE: NETWORKING OF RIVERS"
1121
unanimity of views among all that this project is in the
A
national interest. Though, it is not difficult to visualize the
difficulties in preparation, execution, financing and
consensus building, still, it is the need of the hour to carry
out these projects more effectively and with greater
sensitivity. [paras 26 and 34] [1138-F-H; 1139-A; 1141-B]
B
1.3 The National Council for Applied Economic
Research (NCAER) report clearly opines that interlinking
of river projects will prove fruitful for the nation as a
whole and would serve a greater purpose by allowing
higher returns from the agricultural sector for the benefit C
of the entire economy. This would also result in providing
of varied benefits like control of floods, providing water
to drought-prone States, providing water to a larger part
of agricultural land and even power generation.
However, when coming to the financial aspect of the
D
programme, two concepts are of great relevance: firstly,
the investment strain and secondly, the scope of financial
investment and its recoupment. Primarily, it is clear from
the records that this is a programme/project on which the
nation and the States should have a rational but liberal
E
approach for financial investment. [para 39 and 43] [1142E; 1143-A-B]
1.4 From the facts, recommendations, and principles,
it is clear that primarily there is unanimity between all
authorities concerned including the Centre and a majority
F
of the State Governments that implementation of river
linking will be very beneficial. In fact, the expert opinions
convincingly dispel all other impressions. There shall be
greater growth in agricultural and allied sectors, G
prosperity and stimulus to the economy potentially
causing increase in per capita income, in addition to the
short and long term benefits likely to accrue by such
implementation. These would accrue if the expert
recommendations are implemented properly and wlthin
H
a timeframe. Then there shall be hardly any financial
1122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012] 1 S.C.R.
A strain on the economy. On the contrary, such
implementation would help advancement of India's GDP
and bring greater wealth and prosperity to the nation as
a whole. Besides actual benefits accruing to the common
man, the Governments also benefit from the definite
B possibility of saving the States from drought on the one
hand and floods on the other. This project, when it
becomes a reality, will provide immeasurable benefits.
There is no reason as to why the Governments should
not take appropriate and timely interest in the execution
c of this project, particularly when, in the various affidavits
filed by the Central and the State Governments, it has
been affirmed that the governments are very keen to
implement this project with great sincerity and
effectiveness. [para 47] [1148-F-H; 1149-A-C]
D
2.1. The stand taken by the respective States shows
that, by and large, there is unanimity in accepting
interlinking of rivers but the reservations of these States
can also not be ignored, being relatable to their particular
economic, geographical and socio-economic needs.
E These are matters which squarely fall within the domain
of general consensus and thus, require a framework to
be formulated by the competent Government or the
Legislature, as the case may be, prior to its execution.
However, the national interest must take precedence over
F the interest of the individual States. The State
Governments are expected to view national problems
with a greater objectivity, rationality and spirit of service
to the nation and ill-founded objections may result in
greater harm, not only to the neighbouring States but
G also to the nation at large. [para 50 and 52] [para 51]
[1149-H; 1150-A-F]
2.2 Under Article 262, Parliament, by law, can provide
for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with
resp.ect to the use, distribution and control of water of
H any inter-state river or river valley. Further, Parliament
"IN RE : NETWORKING OF RIVERS"
1123
may by law provide that neither the Supreme Court nor
A
any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of
any dispute or complaint as referred to in Article 262(1).
Thus, Parliament can reserve to itself, the power to oust
the jurisdiction of the courts, including the highest Court
of the land, in relation to a water dispute as stated under
B
this Article. The jurisdiction of the Court will be ousted
only with regard to the adjudication of the dispute and
not all matters incidental thereto. Once a specific
adjudicatory mechanism is created, that machinery
comes into operation with the creation of the Tribunal and c
probably, then alone will the Court's jurisdiction be
ousted. [para 53-55] [1151-A-C-D-G]
Tamil Nadu Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporu/gal
Vivasayigal Na/a Urimai Padhugappu Sangam v. Union of
India & Ors., 1990 (3) SCR 83 =AIR 1990 SC 1316 - relied
D
on.
2.3 Entry 56 of List I empowers Parliament to enact
laws in relation to the regulation and development of interstate rivers and river valleys, to the extent that such
regulation and development is declared by Parliament, by
law, to be expedient in the public interest. Entry 17 relates
to water, that is to say, water supplies, irrigation and
canals, drainage and embankments, water storage and
water power, subject to the provisions of Entry 56 of List
I. Entry 20 of List Ill deals with economic and social
planning. Thus, with the aid of the residual powers under
Entry 97, List I, Parliament gets a very wide field of
legislation, relatable to various subjects. [para 56-57]
[1152-B-C, E]
3.1. Coordination is required to be generated at all
levels to implement the inter-linking of rivers program, as
proposed. Huge amounts of public money have been
spent, at the planning stage itself and it will be travesty
of good governance and the epitome of harm to public
E
F
G
H
1124
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 1 S.C.R.
A interest, if these projects are not carried forward with a
sense of sincerity and a desire for its completion. [para
59] [1152-H; 1153-A]
8
State of Karnataka v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
2000 (3) SCR 301 = (2000) 9 sec 572 ~ relied on.
3.2. A greater element of mutuality and consensus
needs to be built between the States and the Centre on
the one hand, and the States inter se on the other. It will
be very difficult for the courts to undertake such an
c exercise within the limited scope of its power of judicial
review and even on the basis of expanded principles of
public interest litigation. A public interest litigation before
this Court has to fall within the contours of constitutional
law, as no jurisdiction is wider than this Court's
0 constitutional jurisdiction under Article 32 of the
Constitution. [para 62] [1153-H]
3.3. The tasks of making of a policy decision or
planning for the country or determining economic factors
or other crucial asp!lcts like need for acquisition and
E construction of river linking channels under that program
essentially should be left for the Central Government and
the States concerned. Such an attempt by the Court may
amount to the Court sitting in judgment over the opinions
of the experts in the respective fields, without any tools
F and expertise at its disposal. The requirements in the
instant case have different dimensions. The planning,
acquisition, financing, pricing, civil construction,
environmental issues involved are policy decisions
affecting the legislative competence and would squarely
G fall in the domain of the Government of States and
Centre. Keeping in view the relative economic and social
needs of interested states, volume of stream and its uses,
land not watered, and other relevant considerations, it
will be for the expert bodies alone to examine on such
H
"IN RE: NETWORKING OF RIVERS"
1125
issues and their impact on the project. [para 51 and 62]
A
[1154-8-E; 1150-E]
3.4. This Court would recommend that these projects
are in the national interest, as is the unanimous view of
all experts, most State Governments and particularly, the
Central Government. But this Court may not be a very
B
appropriate forum for planning and implementation of
such a programme having wide national dimensions and
ramifications. It will not only be desirable, but also
inevitable that an appropriate body should be created to
plan, construct and implement this inter linking of rivers
C
program for the benefit of the nation as a whole. [para 63]
[1154-F-H]
3.5. Union of India and, particularly, the Ministry of
Water Resources, Government of India, is directed to
forthwith constitute a Committee to be called a 'Special
D
Committee for Inter-linking of Rivers' with the
composition as suggested in the judgment.
The
Committee so constituted shall take such steps as
specified in the jur:lgment and submit reports to the
Cabinet of the Government of India. [para 64] [1155-A-B]
E
3.6. The Central and the State Governments
concerned are directed to comply with the directions
contained in the judgment effectively and expeditiously
and without default. This is a matter of national benefit
and progress. There is no reason why any State should
lag behind in contributing its bit to bring the Inter-linking
River Program to a success, thus saving the people living
F
in drought-prone zones from hunger and people living in
flood-prone areas from the destruction caused by floods.
G
[para 65] [1159-E-F]
Case Law Reference:
1990 (3) SCR 83
2000 (3) SCR 301
relied on
relied on
para 54
para 59
H
1126
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 1 S.C.R.
A
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
512 of 2002.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
WITH
8
Writ Petition (C) No. 668 of 2002.
A. Mariarputham, Ranjit Kumar (Amicus Curiae), R.S. Suri,
T.S. Doabia, R.S. Khosla, Sr. MG, S. Gurukrishna Kumar, Dr.
Manish Singhvi, MG, Nikhil Nayyar (Amicus Curiae), Sudarsh
c Menon, Sanjay R. Hegde, A. Subhashini, CHadra Prakash
Pandey, G. Prakash, Gopal Singh, Ravi Bhushan, Manish
Kumar, Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas, Guntur Prabhakar,
Hemantika Wahi, Rojalin Pradhan, Manik Karanjawala, Naresh
K. Sharma, Tara Chandra Sharma, Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey.
D H.S. Sandhu, Mohit Mudgil, Jagjit Chhabra, Ashok K. Mahajan,
G. Umapathy, B. Balaji, R. Ayyam Perumal, Shreekant N.
Terdal, Ranjan Mukherjee, S.C. Ghose, S. Bhowmick, Ramesh
Babu M.R., Shekhar Prasad Gupta, D. Bharathi Reddy, Vikas
Upadhyay, B.S. Banthia, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Sapam
E Biswajit Meitei, Shankar Chillarge, Asha Gopalan Nair,
Soumitra G. Chaudhuri, B.P. Yadav, Anima Kujur, Sampa
Sengupta, Abhijit Sengupta, Sumita Hazarika, Alok Gupta,
Abhinav Ramakrishnan, Milind Kumar, Devanshu K. Devesh,
lrshad Ahmad, G.N. Reddy, R. Nedurt'laran, D.N. Gobursdhan,
Prabal Bagchi, Shiv Kant Arora, Atin Shanker Rastogi,
F Abhishek Agarwal, Sheil Mohini Sethi, Navneet Kumar, Riku
Sarma (for Corporate Law Group), Anil Shrivastav, K.N.
Madhusoodhanan, R. Sathish, Atul Jha, Sandeep Jha,
Dharmendra Kumar Sinha (for Rajesh Srivastava), Pradeep
Misra, Amit Singh, Kamlendra Mishra, Aruna Mathur, Yusuf
G Khan, Kaustubh Sinha, D.D. Kamat, S.W.A. Qadri, D.K. Thakur,
D.S. Mahra, Rupansh Purohit, Manjit Singh, Kamal Mohan
Gupta, Edward Belho, C.M. Kennedy, K. Enatoli Serna, Amit
Kumar Singh, Pardeep Kumar Rapria, Ramesh K. Mishra,
Prashant Bhushan, Bhavanishankar V. Gadnis, B. Sunita Rao,
H
"IN RE: NETWORKING OF RIVERS"
1127
C.K. Sucharita, Runi Chanda, Anisha Panicker, Rachana
A
Srivastava, Ruchi Daga for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. Nearly ten years back, the
petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 668 of 2002, a practicing
advocate, instituted the petition based on some study that there
was a need to conserve water and properly utilize the available
resources. Thus. the present petition has been instituted with
the following prayers:-
"a.
b.
c.
Issue an appropriate writ order or direction, more
particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus
directing the respondent no. 1 to take appropriate
steps/action to nationalize all the rivers in the
country.
Issue an appropriate writ order or direction, more
particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus,
directing the respondent No. 1 to take appropriate
steps/action to inter link the rivers in the southern
peninsula namely, Ganga, Kaveri, Vaigai and
Tambaravani.
Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the respondents to
formulate a scheme whereby the water from the
west flowing rivers could be channelized and
equitably distributed."
B
c
D
E
F
2. The above directions were sought by the petitioner
against the Central Government as well as against various
G
State Governments, for effective management of the water
resources in the country by nationalization and inter-linking of
rivers from Ganga - Cauveri, Vaigai-Tambaravarmi up to Cape
Kumari.
According to him, as early as in 1834, Sir Arthur
Cotton, who had constructed the Godavari and Krishna dams,
suggested a plan called the 'Arthur Cotton Scheme' to link the
H
1128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 1 S.C.R.
A Ganga and Cauveri rivers. In 1930, Sir C.P. Ramaswamy Aiyar
also suggested and supported such a scheme.
Thereafter,
various political leaders of the country have supported the
cause; but no such schemes have actually been implemented.
It is the case of the petitioner that the Inter-State Water
B Disputes Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') and the River Boards
Act, 1956 were enacted by the Parliament under Article 262
read with Entry 56 of List-I of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution of India, 1950 (hereafter, 'the Constitution'). Due
to reluctance of water-rich States, the National Water
c Development Agency (hereafter, 'nwda') has not been allowed
to undertake detailed survey and it is argued that only by
nationalization of the rivers, by the Government of India, this
problem can be resolved to some extent. The petitioner had
filed a writ before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, being
D Writ Petition No. 6207 of 1983, praying for various reliefs. This
Writ Petition was disposed of without any effective orders by
the High Court. Persisting with his effort, the petitioner earlier
filed writ petitions before this Court, Jeing Writ Petition (C) No.
75 of 1998 and Writ Petition (C) no. 15 of 1999, praying inter
E alia for nationalized navigation and inter-linking of all the rivers
in the country.
3. We must notice, to put the records straight, that on 29th
September, 1994, a Bench of this Court took suo motu notice
of a write-up that had appeared in the Hindustan Times
F newspaper, dated 18th July, 1994, titled "And quiet flows the
maili Yamuna". Notice was issued to the Central Pollution
Control Board, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Irrigation and
Flood Department of the Government of India, National Capital
Territory of Delhi and the Delhi Administration. Since then, the
G writ petition is being continuously monitored by this Court, till
date. During the pendency of this writ petition, I.A. No. 27 came
to be filed, wherein the learned Amicus Curiae in that case
referred to the address of Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, the then
President of India, on the eve of the Independence Day. This,
H inter alia, related to creating a network between various rivers
"IN RE : NETWORKING OF RIVERS"
1129
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.)
in the country, with a view to deal with the paradoxical situation
A
of floods in one part of the country and droughts in other parts.
In other words, it related to the inter-linking of rivers and taking
of other water management measures. On 16th September,
2002, this Court, while considering the said I.A., directed that
the application be treated as an independent writ petition and
8
issued notice to the various State Governments as well as the
Attorney General for India and passed the following order:-
" Based on the speech of the President on the
Independence Day Eve relating to the need of networking
of the rivers because of the paradoxical phenomenon of C
flood in one part of the country while some other parts face
drought at the same time, the present application is filed.
It will be more appropriate to treat to treat it as
independent Public Interest Litigation with the cause title
"IN RE : NETWORKING OF RIVERS -- v. ---" Amended
D
cause title be filed within a week.
Issue notice returnable on 30th September, 2002 to the
respondents as well as to the Attorney General.
Serve notice on the standing counsel of the respective
States.
Dasti service, iri addition, is permitted."
4. This is how I.A. No. 27 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 725
of 1994 was converted into Writ Petition (Civil) No. 512 of
2002. The Writ Petition (Civil) No. 512 of 2002 was taken up
for hearing and notice was issued to all the States, inviting
affidavits regarding their stance on the issue of networking of
rivers.
5. In view of the above order, the petitioner in Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 668 of 2002 withdrew Writ Petition (C) No. 75 of
1998 as well as Writ Petition (C) 15of1999, which leave was
granted by this Court.
E
F
G
H
1130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012] 1 S.CY.
A
6. As already discussed above. the petitioner had filed Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 668 of 2002 with somewhat similar prayers
as contained in I.A. No. 27. In that writ petition, the petitioner
has averred that no prayer with regard to inter linking of rivers
covering the southern part of the Peninsular Region had been
B claimed and it was also his contention that the southern part
was most drought prone and had been witnessing more interstate water disputes. Thus, he had filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.
668 of 2002 and prayers made therein were liable to be
allowed.
C
7. In the present case, we are concerned with Writ Petition
(C) No.668 of 2002, Writ Petition (C) No. 512 of 2002 as well
as the l.A.s and the contempt petitions filed in these two
petitions. Accordingly, this order shall dispose of all these
matters but we make it clear that presently, we are not dealing
D with Writ Petition (C) No. 725 of 1994.
8. It has also been averred by the petitioners and the
intervenors in these petitions that the need to conserve water
resources and assuring their optimum consumption can be
E seen from the steps taken in th is regard, not only by the
developed countries but also by developing and underdeveloped countries.
The Government of India has always
shown considerable concern regarding the management of
water resources in the country and had framed, for this purpose,
F the National Water Policy which is being updated on a yearly
basis. The National Water Policy seeks to make available
water supply to those areas which face shortages. This aspect
of the matter could be effectively dealt with, only if the various
rivers in the country are linked and are nationalized. This has
been a matter of public debate and discussion for a
G considerable time and still continues to be so, without showing
any reflection of ground reality.
9. The Ministry of Irrigation, along with the Central Water
Commission, had formulated in the year 1980 a National
H Perspective Plan (NPP) for optimum utilization of water
"IN RE: NETWORKING OF RIVERS"
1131
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
resources in the country which envisaged inter-basin transfer
A
of water from water-surplus to water-deficit areas. Apart from
diverting water from rivers which are surplus, to deficit areas,
the river linking plan in its ultimate stage of development will
also enable flood moderation. It was comprised of two
components: Peninsular Rivers Development and Himalayan
B
Rivers Development. The first involved major inter-linking of the
river systems and the latter envisaged the construction of
storage reservoirs on the principal tributaries of rivers Ganga
and Brahmaputra in India, Bhutan and Nepal. This was to help
transfer surplus flows of the eastern tributaries of the Ganga to c
the West, apart from linking the main Brahmaputra and its
tributaries with the Ganga and Mahanadi rivers. The scheme
is divided into four major parts:
(i)
Interlinking of Mahanadi-Godavari-Krishna-Cauvery
rivers and building storages at potential sites in
D
these basins.
(ii)
Interlinking of West flowing rivers north of Bombay
and south of Tapi.
(iii)
Interlinking of rivers Ken & Chambal.
(iv)
Diversion of other west flowing rivers from Kerala.
E
10. The petitioners have also made several suggestions
which have been appreciated by the competent authorities on
F
consideration. It is emphasized that the cost is negligible when
compared to the potential benefits which may be bestowed on
the nation.
The petitioners rely upon Article 262 of the
Constitution, read along with Entry 17, List II and Entry 56 of
List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution to substantiate
G
their submissions. Finally, the petitioners submit that the
preservation of water resources is a part of the right to life and
livelihood, enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and that
the Central Government should take immediate and urgent
steps to nationalize the rivers, so that equitable and proper
H
1132
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 1 S.C.R.
A distribution of water can be ensured for the betterment of the
population. According to them, the Central Government should
also adopt all necessary measures, both scientifically and
naturally, to increase the usable water resources and to
preserve whatever resources the Union of India has already
B been naturally gifted with.
11. As a result and because of the inaction on the part of
the Central Government and the State Governments, it is
submitted that grant of the reliefs as prayed for in the writ
C petition would be in consonance with the constitutional spirit
and in the larger public interest.
12. The learned Amicus Curiae, who had been pursuing
this public cause for a number of years, in furtheran.ce to the
request of this Court, has also submitted a detailed note with
D regard to the background and summary of the proceedings in
these petitions'.
13. As per the learned Amicus Curiae, on 14th August,
2002, the then President of India, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, in his
E address to the nation on the eve of Independence Day, had
observed that the need of the hour was the creation of a Water
Mission which, inter alia, would look into the question of
networking of rivers with a view to deal with the paradoxical
situation of floods in one part of the country and drought in the
other.
Based on this and as afore-recorded, a notice was
F issued, on 16th September, 2002, to the States and the
Attorney General for India as respondents. In response to the
said notice, none of the States or Union Territories, except the
State of Tamil Nadu, had filed affidavits supporting/opposing
the prayers made in the writ petition. The time for filing of
G affidavits was again extended up to 30th September, 2002, but
no further affidavits were received by that time.
14. The learned then Attorney General for India, on behalf
of the Union of India, stated that the Government had accepted
H the concept of interlinking of rivers and a High Powered Task
"IN RE: NETWORKING OF RIVERS"
1133
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
Force would be formed.
Therefore, this Court, vide Order
A
dated 31st October, 2002, recorded that there is in-principle
consensus amongst all States to go ahead with the project of
interlinking of rivers.
15. Vide Order dated 30th August, 2004, it was noticed
8
by this Court that, though there had been a change in the
Government, the then Solicitor General, appearing for the
Government, informed this Court that a decision had been
taken, in principle, to continue with interlinking of rivers.
16. A high level Task Force was set up. However, vide
C
order dated 5th May, 2003, this Court observed that inputs from
other experts, in many fields, were necessary and that the Task
Force was to give due consideration to such inputs. Feasibility
Reports (hereafter, 'FR') were prepared for the intended links.
Subsequently, vide its order dated 8th April, 2005, this Court
D
made it absolutely clear that the orders of the Court in these
respects have to be complied with in letter and spirit. The FR
of all links were to be put on the website after their completion.
This Court had also made observations that the prior consent
of any State Government was not necessary for placing the FRs
E
on the website and directed them to be so placed. With great
persuasion and efforts, the FRs of 16 links had been placed
on the website. At the request of the Amicus, the website was
ordered to be made interactive so that people could submit their
response thereto.
F
17. The status report filed on behalf of the Government of
India also showed that a committee of environmentalists, social
activists and other experts would be constituted to be involved
in the consultative process of formulation and execution of the
entire project.
G
18. The status reports filed, from time to time, have been
considered by this Court.
19. Now, we may deal with the response of various States,
H
1134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 1 S.C.R.
A as they appear from the record before us. The response
affidavits have been filed on behalf of ten States. However, the
remaining States have not responded, despite the grant of
repeated opportunities to do so. While the States of Rajasthan,
Gujarat and Tamil Nadu have supported the concept of interB linking of rivers, the State of Madhya Pradesh had stated that
networking of rivers is a subject falling under the jurisdiction of
the Central Government and the Central Government should
consider the matter. The States of Karnataka, Bihar, Punjab,
Assam and Sikkim have given their approval to the concept inc principle, but with definite reservations, i.e., a kind of qualified
approval, arguing that the matters with regard to the
environmental and financial implications, socio-economic and
international aspects, such as inter-basin water transfer, need
to be properly examined at the appropriate levels of the
0 Government. For example, all the rivers in Bihar originate from
Nepal and it may be necessary or desirable to take consent of
neighbouring countries, is a matter which would require
consideration of the appropriate authority in the Central
Government. According to the State of Punjab, inter-linking of
E rivers should be started only from water-surplus States to States
facing water deficit. The States of Assam, Sikkim and Kerala
had raised their protests on the grounds that they should have
exclusive right to use their water resources and that such transfer
should not affect any rights of these States.
The State of
Sikkim was concerned with particular reference to tapping of
F the hydro power potential in the State and the State of Kerala
entirely objected to long distance, inter-basin, water transfer.
20. The Union of India filed three different affidavits dated
25th October, 2002, 5th May, 2003 and 24th December, 2003.
G From these affidavits, the stand of the Union of India appears
to be that networking of rivers had been considered with great
seriousness even after the 1972 Rao Committee Report.
Surveys and studies were underway. The 1980 National
Perspective Plan of the erstwhile Ministry of Irrigation, presently
H the Ministry for Water Resources, envisaged inter-basin transfer
"IN RE: NETWORKING OF RIVERS"
1135
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.)
from water-surplus to deficit areas. It would have direct benefits,
A
like the irrigation of 35 million hectares (Mha), full exploitation
of existing irrigation projects of 140 Mha, power generation of
34 million Kilowatt (KW); besides the indirect benefits like flood
control, navigation, water supply, fisheries, pollution control,
recreation facilities, employment generation, infrastructure and
B
socio-economic development etc. With regard to the
approvals required, it is submitted that the Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Union of India had given some
clearances, while refusing the same in other cases. The
consent of some of the States had not been received. The c
expected financial implication as far back as in 2002 was
Rs.5,60,000 crores.
21. However, the Union of India has submitted that there
is no necessity for formation of a high-powered committee as
prayed for in the petitions. The high-level task force is to be
D
set up for considering the modalities of state-wise consensus.
The NWDA was set up as autonomous registered society under
the aegis of Ministry of Water Resources, in new Delhi in 1992,
for the purposes of preparation of FRs, conduct of waterbalance and other scientific studies, etc. for Peninsular Region
E
rivers (and for Himalayan Region rivers also, since 1990) and
is headed by the Union· Minister of Water Resources. The Chief
Ministers and/or the Ministers and the Secretaries as their
nominees for Water Resources/Irrigation of the State
governments are its members. The pre-feasibility reports of
F
all 30 identified links had been completed by the nwda.
22. The Union of India and some states have shown their
concerns and their apprehensions about these projects,
including questioning the reliability of water supply from distant
G
sources, distribution of water given the existing tribunal awards
and the continued availability of existing water. surpluses.
23. In another affidavit, the Union of India referred to the
Terms of Reference to the Task Force and the appointment of
its Members. Action Plan I was prepared, which was expected
H
1136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 1 S.C.R.
A to be implemented by 2016. Out of the independent links to
be pursued for discussion, the first were the links in the States
of Gujarat. Maharashtra, Chattisgarh; secondly, the S_tates of
Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan
were to be included in discussions and thirdly, the States of
B Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Orissa were to be invited for
discussion. The Detailed Project Reports (hereafter, 'DPR')
were expected to be completed by December, 2006. However,
from the record, it appears that these DPRs have not been
completed even till today. The scheme of inter-linking of rivers/
c preparation of DPRs is stated to be under review by different
groups and authorities.
24 The Union of India also intended that these project
reports should encompass water sector schemes, rainwater
harvesting schemes etc., as these cannot be implemented
D independent of the inter-linking scheme. The last of the
affidavits filed on behalf of the Union of India was in December,
2003. This affidavit gives details of the States, with which a
dialogue was to be held as also the details of constitution of
sub-committees. The Terms of Reference of the Task Force
E included the approval of all links. With the intention to arrive at
a general consensus, before entering into agreements, the
Union of India has discussed details with Maharashtra and
Gujarat and preliminary discussion has taken place with the
States of Andhra Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Karnataka, Orissa,
F Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. According to the Union of India,
invoking the matter internationally, at this stage, was not
advisable as the matter was premature. The nwda was to begin
the DPR for the first link, i.e., the Ken-Betwa project, which itself
was expected to take 30 months time. In this, the DPR has
G now been prepared; however, the implementation is yet to
begin. We must notice that in all other links even the DPRs
are not ready, as of now. The draft Memorandum of
Understanding (hereafter, 'MoU') had been circulated for
conduct of DPR of three more Peninsular links. The Standing
H Committee of the Parliament on Water Resources, (hereafter,
"IN RE: NETWORKING OF RIVERS"
1137
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
'the Standing Committee'), in its report for the year 2004-05
A
has commented that for the purpose of preparation of DPRs
for the Ken-Betwa link and the Parbati-Kalisindh-Chambal link
projects, a sum of Rs.14 crores had been earmarked, out of
the total Rs.35 crores allocated for NWDA. However, the
Standing Committee had been constrained to observe that,
8
though the FR of the Ken-Betwa link was completed in
November, 1996, the project was still at a nascent stage. At
the time of the report in 2004-05, the basic MoU between the
Governments of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, for
preparation of DPR, still remained to be signed, on the ground
C
that the State of Uttar Pradesh required more water to be
allocated to it. They further observed that, if the Ministry of Water
Resources, Government of India had set a time frame for
finalization of issues like this, the precious time of eight years
would not have been lost. The matter still rests at that stage.
0
Today, though DPR has been prepared for this link alone, no
. link project has reached the implementation stage.
25. The report of the Standing Committee which, inter alia,
had examined the river inter-linking proposal was presented to
the Parliament of India on 23rd August, 2004. It was strongly
E
recommended that the Government should take firm steps and
fix a definite time frame to lay down the guidelines for
completion of FRs, preparation of DPRs and completion of
projects so that they may be completed and the benefits
accrued within reasonable time and costs. It was the opinion
F
of the Standing Committee that the inter-linking of Himalayan
and Southern region rivers, if done within a definite schedule,
would save the nation from the devastating ravages of chronic
droughts and floods. The recommendations of the Standing
Committee deal primarily with two kinds of States; the States
G
having water shortage and the States having surplus water.
Still, there would be a third category of States, which would be
comprised of those States which have just sufficient water and
therefore, do not fall in either the flood-affected or the droughtaffected categories of States. The role of such States may not
H
1138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 1 S.C.R.
A be very project-related; but, their consent/concurrence is
needed for complete implementation of the programme. Their
role is relevant as some canal projects, linking different rivers,
may pass through such States.